Edited by W. Joseph Stroupe with the mission of explaining world events correctly via strategic analysis & forecasting
|
|
|
||||||
Massive US Attack on Iran the Great Equalizer?Kuwaiti media reports in the Arab Times on January 14, 2007, written by the Times' Editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Jarallah and based on a reliable source, relay that the US/British naval buildup currently underway in and around the Persian Gulf is designed, not merely to 'send Iran a signal', but rather to put in place all assets necessary for a massive air strike on Iran, likely by April, 2007. The private revelations reveal that the Bush and Blair administrations "believe that attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calming down the situation in Iraq and paving the way for their democratic project", according to reports from the Chinese news agency Xinhua that are reporting on the Kuwaiti analysis of the situation. Obviously, the US and Britain wish to roll back Iran's regional advances and restore the rough balance of power that existed between Iran and the region's Sunni regimes prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Jan. 14, 2007 |
The oil-rich Sunni Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf, traditional allies of the US and Britain, acutely and strategically fearful of the implications of the accelerated political, ideological, energy-based economic and militarized advancement of Iran and its potent proxies and allies across the region, are throwing their support behind the Bush plan for Iraq and the region -
After having been specifically and indomitably assured by the Bush administration that Iran's worrying regional advances will be rolled back by virtually unreserved force. A US/British-led, region wide Sunni "axis of moderation" is emerging to directly confront, and mightily push back, the advancing Shiite "axis of radicalism" to bring a "new balance of power to the region". The "axis of moderation" is preparing and already utilizing potent levers in the spheres of naval, air and ground-based military forces, energy-based economic power and political/ideological influence to confront Iran and its proxies across the region. This new strategy is not a slow-moving one that seeks eventual success by cautious gradualism, but rather it is one that seeks to brilliantly and swiftly cut across all the ropes of the Gordian knot ever more tightly constricting the shared strategic interests of the "moderate" oil-rich Sunni regimes and of the West in the all-important but deeply troubled region. The new strategy fundamentally and gravely miscalculates the ability of the US and its allies to actually "bring a new balance of power" to the Middle East. Jan 19, 2007 | The media is rife with ebb and flow "analysis" and speculation about a supposed impending change of direction in US policy in Iraq, the wider Middle East region and on the world stage itself. However, such speculation is based almost entirely on the surface ebb and flow of daily events rather than upon the steadfast and cohesive undertow of factors and forces, both domestic and foreign, that genuinely drives the direction of US foreign policy. That undertow will permit no fundamental course change away from the previous six years characterized by hard line neo-conservative ascendancy in US foreign policy. In fact, that steadfast undertow is even gaining momentum as the US administration is increasingly faced with the stark choice between resignation to a dismal forfeiture on the one hand, or, on the other hand, an ardent, last-ditch stab at snatching success from the jaws of failure in a widening array of foreign policy crises, including Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, North Korea and more. Dec. 6, 2006 |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
| 2003 was the year that marked the implementation of bold and reckless strategies aimed at handing the US and Britain virtual ownership of the crucial Middle East region and far beyond, but 2006 was the year all the negative repercussions of their failed policies finally converged, obliging the two reckless powers to stare into the yawning chasm of a regional forfeiture. Now, 2007 is the year that marks the full-blown arrival of the endgame in the Middle East, when the US, Britain and Israel attempt to somehow pull a "win" from the mauling flames of region-wide failure. Their desperate policy of "one last push" to achieve that win is already shoving all the region's fractious players into a similar endgame stance, powerfully accelerating the region's descent into instability and upheaval as all its players get set into an endgame posture to make their final moves to prevent a loss of their respective goals and interests, each one attempting to win the game against its opponent(s) before time and opportunity quickly run out. Jan. 1, 2007 | What is the administration's strategy and how does Iran fit into the picture? What are the chances for success of the emerging grand strategy? What happens if the unfolding new policies backfire as the Iraq invasion has done? Dec. 1, 2006 | The sweeping Democrat victory in regaining control of both houses of Congress in the US mid-term elections has observers wondering and speculating on what, if any, meaningful policy changes are in the offing with regard to Iraq. The Iraq Study Group (ISG) co-chaired by James Baker III, currently studying the possibilities in the Iraq crisis and due to deliver its much-awaited report early in December, has enjoyed a recent upsurge of interest on the part of Republicans and Democrats alike (although top Bush administration officials continue publicly to downplay the importance and relevance of the ISG and assert they are not bound by its recommendations) - both sides of the aisle hope the ISG report might provide a pragmatic roadmap out of the crisis for the US, one that somehow avoids a costly US failure and forfeiture of its Middle East goals and the regional and geopolitical windfall that would come to US rivals, most notably to Iran and to its proxies (such as Hamas and Hezbollah), as a result. But prospects for a turnaround in US misfortunes are remote at best...Nov. 27, 2006 |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
| In the latest developments in the Iran crisis the US has unexpectedly agreed to sit down with its partners at the negotiating table with Iran. In a further unexpected development the US is reported to have offered Iran civilian nuclear technology and a lifting of certain economic sanctions if Iran stops its nuclear enrichment operations.
Security guarantees for Iran are apparently missing from the package, however, as the US still refuses to take military options off the table. Additionally, the package contains threats of UN security council-initiated sanctions if Iran refuses the offer, and it mandates a halt to uranium enrichment activities during talks. Bush administration statements over the past few days have strongly emphasized the word “verifiable” with respect to the proposed halt of uranium enrichment in Iran, thus portending a very intrusive inspection regime that would be an uncompromising part of Western demands. Finally, the US gave its support to a vague proposal to create a regional conference to discuss other areas of concern respecting Iran. Is this a genuine turnabout in the heretofore militaristic Bush administration strategy, or is it merely an EU-US tactical ploy designed to marginalize and isolate the Iranian regime by portraying it as uninterested in serious negotiation so as to make harsh UN-sponsored sanctions, or even military operations, more justifiable? June 10, 2006 |
While Iran has recently removed the U.N. seals from its halted centrifuge projects and stubbornly vowed to continue nuclear development which could assist it to produce nuclear weapons, Israel has vowed it will never permit its rival Iran to become a nuclear-armed threat. Meanwhile, the Council on Foreign Relations is warning the Bush administration to do whatever it takes to restrain Israel from launching pre-emptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, which it says will result in pointedly negative regional consequences for the U.S. itself. What is behind Iran's recent pugnacious verbal threats and its strident actions in reviving its nuclear projects, which even appear designed as a dare to the U.S. and/or Israel to try to prevent its nuclear progress? Are we witnessing growing Iranian impatience and foolhardiness, or increased Iranian self-confidence and its well-thought-out strategic moves in the pursuit of its regional geopolitical goals? If the latter, upon what might such increased self-confidence and self-assurance be based? Are pre-emptive attacks on Iranian nuclear sites in the offing? What might Iran do to either head off such attacks, or to mount effective and painful retaliation for them in the event they do occur? Is Iran in a position of weakness, or is it rather the U.S. and Israel which would stand to become the biggest strategic losers in a scenario of pre-emptive attacks and Iranian retaliation? Aug. 2, 2004 | As a result of its own actions in invading Iraq, the U.S. finds itself locked in a struggle with Iran over which side will be the resident superpower of the Persian Gulf. Washington wants the regional center of power to be located in Baghdad, remade in its own desired image and bristling with American military power with which it can control the region at large, in the interests of advancing its own energy security. Iran wants a significant shift to Teheran of the regional center of power. From that center, Iran hopes to realize its own long-held dream of domination of the Persian Gulf by extending its influence outward across the region. Washington is fighting upstream against an array of powerful forces in an attempt to realize its goals, and its "progress" to-date is mostly in the reverse direction. Teheran and its sponsors and allies may soon realize an immensely important opportunity to exploit the current situation so as to realize its own goals. Both sides sense that the endgame is nearing. May 13, 2004 | ||||||
© Copyright 2004-2008 This content may not be reproduced, reprinted or otherwise disseminated, nor may its inherent distinctive and original ideas be used elsewhere without the prior written permission of W. Joseph Stroupe. No journalistic, analytical, editorial or forecasting substance from GeoStrategyMap.com may be republished or employed in any form without prior written permission. Send all requests for permission by email to: editor_in_chief@geostrategymap.com. |
ARCHIVES |
FEATURES |
SITE REFERENCE |
